https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260740 Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance for non-deduction of tax under section 194C was held to require reconsideration because the jurisdictional High Court had rejected the Merilyn Shipping view on confining the provision to amounts outstanding at year-end, so the matter was remanded for fresh decision. Verification of ROC expenses was only directed and no substantive relief survived, so the Revenue's challenge failed. Inspection, processing and rating charges for obtaining bank finance were treated as revenue expenditure because they did not create an enduring capital asset, and the deletion was upheld. The addition for alleged closing stock discrepancy against the insurance policy was also deleted for lack of supporting enquiry and factual basis. en-us Tue, 09 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Feb 2016 16:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260740 Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance for non-deduction of tax under section 194C was held to require reconsideration because the jurisdictional High Court had rejected the Merilyn Shipping view on confining the provision to amounts outstanding at year-end, so the matter was remanded for fresh decision. Verification of ROC expenses was only directed and no substantive relief survived, so the Revenue's challenge failed. Inspection, processing and rating charges for obtaining bank finance were treated as revenue expenditure because they did not create an enduring capital asset, and the deletion was upheld. The addition for alleged closing stock discrepancy against the insurance policy was also deleted for lack of supporting enquiry and factual basis. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 09 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260740